In this article we clarify the historical roots of stakeholder theory to establish that a much larger
role was played by Scandinavian thinkers in its development than is currently acknowledged.
We show that important contributions to the stakeholder concept were being made by Eric
Rhenman and his Scandinavian contemporaries in parallel to the contributions from the Stanford
Research Institute (SRI) in the early 1960s and thereafter and thus are not a “historical trail” as
they are currently labeled. Therefore we offer a significant modification to the historical
narrative as presented in Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Freeman, 1984).
These important Scandinavian contributions include the first publication and description of the
expression „stakeholder‟ in management literature accessible to scholars throughout the world
and the introduction of the first stakeholder map to the management literature.
We use this occasion to consider potential relationships between these early Scandinavian
contributions to the stakeholder concept with current practices of well-known Scandinavian
companies. Through this we contend the evidence suggests relationships worthy of further
considerations. We conclude by endorsing the expression “Scandinavian cooperative advantage”
through which we intend to provoke increased attention from beyond Scandinavia. Cooperation
between companies and their stakeholders is increasingly recognized as necessary for the social
and environmental sustainability of world and the long-term profitability of companies where we
contend inspiration for such cooperation may be prosperously drawn from Scandinavia.

Whereas strategic management in the U.S. has traditionally focused on competition and a competitive advantage, Scandinavian strategic management has long centered on effective cooperation. In light of recent calls in the U.S. to shift toward cooperation to realize opportunities for shared value creation and address sustainability challenges, the Scandinavian context can effectively serve as an inspiration for this shift. We conduct our exploration with two interrelated objectives: to increase awareness of the Scandinavian cooperative approach and encourage practitioner and researcher inquiry, and to provide a stepping stone to a more thorough research agenda on cooperation in the Scandinavian context.

An increasing number of firms are engaging in social and environmental initiatives beyond their core business activities. While much has been written on the question of why business should be spending resources on social and environmental causes, relatively few studies have systematically addressed the question of why companies actually do engage in such activities. A notable exception is literature on the ‘business case’ for corporate social responsibility, which argues that good social and environmental performance will positively affect a company’s financial results. Empirical evidence, however, has failed to prove this. Moreover, even if there is an economic rationale, it is not clear why some companies engage in social activities while others do not. And, why do many more companies today ‘see’ the business case than in the past? Our paper attempts to conceptualise the motives of companies to engage or not to engage in such activities. Drawing on theories from Management Studies, Sociology, Political Science and International Relations, we suggest modifying the notion of the business case by opening the black box of the corporation’s identity as a social actor.

Filer i denne post: 1

The purpose of this paper is to present a strategy for applying discourse analysis to the debate concerning the legal status of Corporate Social Responsibility ("CSR”). In the 1990s activists concerned with corporate involvement in activities that harm workers and the environment encouraged corporations to adopt voluntary initiatives, which have come to be known as CSR policies or corporate codes of conduct. Roughly ten years later NGOs like Christian Aid, which at first was a strong proponent of voluntary corporate codes of conduct, have begun calling for a greater emphasis on law and accountability mechanisms. Trade unions especially have expressed deep scepticism of the idea of CSR initiatives and the attendant industry that has grown up around them. The trade union movement criticises CSR initiatives for being a strategy to avoid regulation and trade unions.

This study analyzes which firms leave multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) for corporate social
responsibility. Based on an analysis of all active and delisted participants from the UN Global
Compact between 2000 and 2015 (n= 15,853), we find that SMEs are more likely to be delisted than
larger and publicly-listed firms; that early adopters face a higher risk of being delisted; and that the
presence of a local network in a country reduces the likelihood of being delisted. We theorize that
MSIs face a participant self-selection bias over time and that local networks enable legitimacy
spillover effects that prevent firms from exiting.